Alex Mayer (S&D). – Mr President, a brain drain. That’s what being unable to apply for European Research Council (ERC) funding could trigger according to the University of Cambridge, because it is not just the hard cash that is important, EU funding is key in enabling international collaboration and attracting the very best scientists, and Horizon 2020 also means that University of East Anglia scientists are building prototype, clean, cheap and energy efficient batteries, while at the University of Hertfordshire, Ph.D. researchers are exploring photovoltaic technologies. Today we discussed the successor programme, Horizon Europe for 2021-2027.

Now I appreciate that’s rather far in the future for the British Government, who currently seems to only operate on an hour-by-hour basis, but in or out of the EU, we need to be in the Horizon Europe. Our current reputation is for ground-breaking research, but we know well that reputations are hard won and easily lost.

Rory Palmer (S&D). – Mr President, Horizon funding is making a real difference in my region: GBP 110 million supporting cutting-edge research at East Midlands universities, GBP 37 million to support business and enterprise across the region. This funding is vital, just like the European funding programmes over the years that have underpinned regeneration and economic development, and which have supported important programmes across social priorities like adult learning.

The British Government must now commit to replacing these funding programmes pound for pound. Anything less will not be acceptable. If billions can be found for a no-deal Brexit, then money can be found to replace these EU funding programmes on a pound—for—pound basis. Anything less will not be acceptable. Remain or leave, all areas in my region must get their fair share in the future, and that’s what I’ll be arguing for.

Nirj Deva (ECR). – Mr President, Horizon 2020 has been one of the most extraordinary research vehicles for a long time. Because this might be one of the final times we speak in this Parliament, I wanted to say that the research activities of the European Parliament and the people involved with me over the last 20 years in producing original research for legislation have been phenomenal. I want to particularly thank the following for their innovation and research: Susan Kerr, Ben Harnwell, Rhiannon Price, Daniel Hamilton, Ingrid Grosu, Lin Gai, Liakath Kabir, Armen Andonian, Edward Robinson and Daniel Howard. They have made a significant contribution to the work of this Parliament in the last 20 years working with me.

Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, where do we get this idea that politicians and officials are best placed to decide where research spending should go? I was a journalist before I was elected here, and I was always getting bumf from people promoting this or that government programme, and I can’t in honesty remember any of them that actually yielded results. If we think of the great tech breakthroughs that we’ve had, the things that have transformed people’s lives – the American tech giants, the mobile phone breakthroughs, the search engines and so on – none of them depended on government grants, any more than did the people who made the Industrial Revolution in the first place. We’ve got locked into this rather sad circle where we ask recipients of this money whether it’s a good idea. Well of course they’re going to say it’s a good idea: by definition, they are the beneficiaries. But is this really the best way with a limited budget to be deploying it? I’m all in favour of spending money on education – there are some things, obviously, we should do collectively – but when I hear Members of this House suggesting that success is measured by the size of the budget rather than by any real world output, I wonder whether we have our priorities right.